
.^°''*- ■.^^.° OF W C; ii :^ 

.i:L.% " v^* Congress ^ v<*.--%'" 



Obt.rhoH-Z£.r 



1902 



'ff/er 



4 <L' A * 



vV^ 



.0^ o*"'"^ ^. 



'bv?' 






»bv^ 



.^^ o *,7;<;t»\,o^ '<h. 






'XT*' /S 






.^^ ^'A 



^oV" 



» * • '. 






VAO^ 









r. '^^ A^ ■ *:K\V/k<' \. c'?^'*' **^Ql^'. "e^ ^^ ' .:. 



•^ -^^^^^ 






u^ 



4 o 






%* ^0 









iV^ 




-S^ 












% -e^-o^ /. 















o ■ • 




w 



% ^J^c.'i ^ 








^"^ °**^-\<.° .. V'-^\/ %'.-■■■■ ^- -0.-'.-. 



•PVJ 











BEFORE THE 



€otnntanderyHn-€l)ief of tbcCoyal Cegion 
of the United States 



CHICAGO, OCTOBER 12,1910 



CASE OF 

COMPANION CHARLES DAVID ADAM LOEFFLER 

MAJOR U. S. ARMY (RETIRED) 



BRIEF 

FOR THE COMMANDERY OF THE STATE OF OHIO 

THE LAW REPORTED PRINTINO CO., WASKINOTQN, D. C. 






IJ(. 



Before tlieCommanl)cry-in-€litef, 

Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the 

United States, at Chicago, Illinois, 

October 12, 1910. 



In the Matter of Charles David Adam Loeffler, Major, 
U. S. A., Retired, a Companion of the First- Class of 
the Commandery of the State of Ohio, Unani- 
mously Elected After Due Publication at a\Stated 
Meeting Held at Columbus, Ohio, November 2, 
1904. 



Statement of Facts. 

At the dates of Major Loeffler's application for mem- 
bership and his election through the Ohio Commandery, 
the Constitution of the Order read as follows: 

"Article IV. — Organization. 

"Sec. 1. This Order shall be composed of State 
Commanderies and a National Commandery. 

"Sec. 2. There shall be but one Commandery in 
each State, which shall be designated as 'The 

Commandery of the State of ,' excepting 

the Commandery of the District of Columbia, 
which shall be designated as such. The relative 
seniority of the several State Commanderies shall 
be determined by the respective dates of their 
institution. 

"Sec. 3. The National Commandery shall be 
designated 'The Commandery-in-Chief.' 

"Sec. 4. Commanderies may become incorpo- 
rated subject to the provisions of this Constitu- 
tion. 

4119—1 



"Aeticle VI. — Election of Members. 

''Sec. 1. Every application for membership shall 
be made to the Commandery of the State in which 
the applicant resides if a Commandery exists 
therein, and if there be none, then to such Com- 
mandery as the applicant may select." 

Ninth Quadrennial Congress, April 19, 1901. 

Although the Commandery of the District of Columbia 
had been instituted under authority of said Article IV 
long prior to the year 1904, to wit, on February 1, 1882, 
no requirement that a resident of the District of Colum- 
bia should apply for membership to the Commandery of 
the District appeared in the Constitution until the Tenth 
Quadrennial Congress, adjourned from San Francisco 
April 12, 1905, to Milwaukee May 31, 1905, at which the 
following proceedings were had: 

Journal of Congress, May 31, 1905. 

"Extract: 

'^Resolved, That a committee of seven represen- 
tatives be appointed to consider the proposed 
amendments to the Constitution. 

"The resolution was adopted. 

"Commander-in-Chief Gregg appointed as the 
committee representatives Thomas H. Hubbard, 
Amos J. Harding, James H. Gillpatrick, Lewis A. 
Grant, Frank Clendenin, William H. Lambert, 
and William H. Turner as the Committee. 

"Companion Turner declined, and the name of 
Francis S. Hesseltine was substituted. 

"Extract: 

" Report of Committee. 

" The committee has also considered the amend- 
ment proposed by District of Columbia Com- 
mandery to Art. VI, sec. 1, which is designed to 






relieve an ambiguitif in tiie section that it now 
applies to. 

"The Committee recommends that the Congress 
adopt the proposed amendment." 

And it was adopted by the unanimous vote of the 
Commanderies represented to take effect July 4, 1905; 
since when the Constitution has read as follows: 

"Article VI. 

"Sec. 1. Every application for membership 
shall be made to the Commandery of the State in 
which the applicant resides, if a Commandery 
exists therein, and if there be none, then to such 
Commandery as the applicant may select. Pro- 
vided: That applicants residing in the District of 
Columbia shall apply to the Commandery thereof." 

Tenth Quadrennial Congress, San Francisco, 
April 12, 1905, adjourned to Milwaukee 
May 31, 1905;in effect July 4, 1905 

At the date, therefore, of Major Loeffler's application 
and election, through the Commandery of the State of 
Ohio, he had the unquestioned right to apply to any 
State Commandery, or to the Commandery of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, as he might elect, if a resident of the 
city of Washington, but only to the Ohio Commandery, 
as a resident of the State of Ohio. 

At the time of his application. Major Loeffler did not 
know that the place of residence in any manner controlled 
an application for membership in the Order; but his ap- 
plication was made to the Ohio Commandery because he 
was a legal resident of that State, and more particularly 
because of sentimental associations and warm personal 
friendships among the membership of that Commandery, 
as is set forth in the statement made by him to the Com- 
mandery, at the time of his election, incorporated herein 



Major Loeffler's application for membership was duly 

promulgated in Circular No. , Series of 1904, under 

date of , 1904, of the Commandery of the State of 

Ohio, and was duly furnished to the Recorders of all the 
State Commanderies and the Commandery of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia. Objection was made by the Recorder 
of the District of Columbia Commandery to the Com- 
mander-in-Chief against Major Loeffler's election just 
prior to the October meeting both of the Commandery 
and the Commandery-in-Chief, whereupon Major Loeffler 
requested that action upon his application should be 
suspended until after the meeting of the Commandery-in- 
Chief. At the latter meeting the following proceedings 
were had : 

''Extract from Journal of 20th Annual Meeting, 
Cincinnati, October 12, 1904- 
"The Recorder-in-Chief submitted for the ac- 
tion of the Commandery-in-Chief the application 
through the Commandery of the State of 
p. 300. Ohio, of Major Charles^ D. A. Loeffler, 
U. S. A. (retired), for membership. 
"Companion Henry L. Swords submitted 
the following: 

"' i^eso/uerf, that a committee of three be ap- 
pointed, to whom shall be referred the documents 
in the case for report at the meeting of the Com- 
mandery-in-Chief.' 

"The motion was adopted. 

"Commander-in-Chief Gregg appointed as the 
Committee Companions Henry L. Swords, Joseph 
W. Hawley and F. W. Swift. 

"Companion Henry L. Swords, chairman of the 
Committee to whom was referred the application 
of Major Charles D. A. Loeffler, through 
p. 324. the Commandery of the State of Ohio, 
reported the Committee ready to report. 
"Companion F. W. Swift moyed that the Com- 
mandery-in-Chief proceed to the consideration of 
the report. 

"The motion was adopted. 



"Cincinnati, October 12, 1904- 
''Commander-in-Chief and Companions: 

" Your Committee to whom was referred the 
matter of the application of Major Loeffier for 
membership in this Order through the Com- 
mandery of the District of Columbia, and which 
application was withdrawn by him, he after the 
lapse of some years making a second application 
through the Commandery of the State of Ohio, no 
notice having been given to the Commandery of 
District of Columbia of such action, your Com- 
mittee respectfully suggest that said matter be 
deferred until the next meeting of the Com- 
mandery-in-Chief in order that the Commandery 
of District of Columbia may be heard in the mat- 
ter, and that action on the application of Major 
Loeffier be not taken by the Commandery of the 
State of Ohio pending the decision of the Com- 
mandery-in-Chief on the communication of the 
Commandery of the State of New York. 

"Henry L. Swords, 
"J. W. Hawley, 
"F.W.Swift, 

" Committee. 

"After discussion. 

"The Recorder-in-Chief moved that the report 
be returned to the Committee for report at this 

session of the Commandery-in-Chief ' 
(p. 325). "The motion was adopted. 

"Companion Henry L. Swords, Chairman 
of the Committee to whom had been referred the 
application of Major Charles D. A. Loeffier, sub- 
mitted the followng: 

"'Resolved, That the application of Major 
Loeffier be referred to the Commandery of the 
State of Ohio.' 

"The question being upon the adoption of the 
resolution, it was adopted." 

It was understood that the Ohio Commandery was to 
republish Major Loeffler's application with foot-note 
that he had made application and withdrawn same be- 
fore the District of Columbia Commandery, and that 



6 

Major Huxford should submit to the Ohio Commandery 
any objections he might have to Major Loeffier's elec- 
tion; and it was further understood that the action of 
the Ohio Commandery was to be final. 

The following notice was duly served upon Major 
Huxford at Cincinnati, October 11, 1904, by Major 
Thrall, Recorder of the Ohio Commandery: 

''Notice to Major Huxford, prior to No- 
vember, 1904, Meeting of the Ohio Com- 
mandery. 

"1420 New York Avenue. 

"Washington, D. C, October 7th, 1904. 

"Sir: Deeply regretting if any Companion, for- 
getful of the Carleton Rules, has persuaded him- 
self that he has found technical or other cause 
against the admission of a worthy applicant, par- 
ticularly through another and friendly Command- 
ery of competent jurisdiction, and trusting that 
reflection will induce withdrawal, while yet that 
may be done, but believing it manifestly improper 
that the issue, if persisted, should be determined 
in camera, on behalf of and representing Major 
Charles D. A. LoefRer, U. S. A. (retired), whose 
application for membersiiip in the Military Order 
of the Loyal Legion of the United States, through 
the Commandery of the State of Ohio is pending, 
and as a Companion of the accused Commandery, 
demand is hereby made upon you that, within 
ten days (10) after service upon you of this notice, 
you submit to the said Commandery all and singular 
every charge and objection you have, will make 
or have published, either of your own motion or 
as voicing the views of other Companions, against 
Major Loeffier's admission or eligibility to mem- 
bership, and against the integrity of the said 
application, and of the said Commandery, in con- 
nection therewith, together with all your proofs 
or a detailed statement of the same. You are now 



notified that you will be held to strict proof of 
every matter so objected. Upon your failure to 
submit such charges and objections, over your 
signature and such verification as may be requi- 
site in the premises, or to withdraw them, your 
publication of the same will duly be proven as 
provided by law, and the said Commandery will 
be asked to proceed pro confesso, as may be meet 
and proper in such case. Final action will be 
urged at the November meeting of said Com- 
mandery, at Masonic Temple, Cincinnati, at which 
time and place you are invited to be present and 
confront the accused. 

"Respectfully and fraternally, 

"Geo. H. Patrick, 



Companion of the Commandery of the 
State of Ohio, M. 0. L. L U. S., 
of counsel for the said applicant. 

"Major William P. Huxford, U. S. A. (Retired), 
Recorder of the Commandery of the District 
of Columbia, Military Order of the Loyal 
Legion of the United States, Kellogg 
Building, No. 1416 "F" Street, N. W., 
Washi7igton, D. C. 
"Served: October 11, 1904, by Major Thrall, 
at Cincinnati. 

"Expiration of Notice: October 22d, 1904." 



At the meeting of the Ohio Commandery the following 
were presented: 

"1. Major Loeffler's application. 
"2. Major Loeffier's letter to the Recorder, 
dated October 27, 1904. 

"3. Major Huxford's letter to the Recorder, 



* 
/ 



8 

dated October 29, 1904, inclosing an excerpt from 
the minutes of the Board of Officers of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia Commandery of October 27, 
1904. 

Extract from Ohio Commandery Circular No. 36, 
October 22, 1904. 

"III. The following application for membership 
will be acted upon: 

"For the First Class (postpo7ied from last meet- 
ing): 

"Charles David Adam Loeffler, 
"Major U. S. Army (retired). 

"Register: Enlisted at Baltimore, Md., July 10, 
1858, as private in Troop H, 2nd U. S. Cavalry 
(subsequently changed to oth Cavalry), and served 
as private and lance corporal to March 14, 1863; 
to August 7, 1863, on special duty as scout and 
confidential despatch bearer at Headquarters 
Army of the Potomac under Adjutant General 
Seth Williams, U. S. A.; re-enlisted in the general 
service August 7, 1863, and served as private and 
sergeant to July 17, 1872, when discharged to 
accept civil appointment as door-keeper to the 
President; commissioned Captain and Military 
Store-Keeper, U. S. A., July 5, 1898; retired Jan- 
uary 12, i901; Major, U. S. Army (retired), April 
23, 1904. 

"History of Service: About February I, 1861, 
went with detail of ten men to Columbus, Texas, 
passing through camp of General Ben McCullough, 
of the Texas revolutionary army, then in control. 
At this point, on leaving, successfully resisted 
attack from some of McCullough's men; thence 
to San Antonio; to Sauer Lake; thence with 
about seven troops of the regiment marched to 
Indianola and took steamer to Key West; thence 
to Havana, to New York, and to Washington. 
With squadron under command of Major Innis 
Palmer on duty in Washington until after the first 



battle of Bull Run, when it went into camp on 
the Columbia Road in the District of Columbia; 
during the fall and winter of 1861 was orderly and 
despatch bearer at the Headquarters of the Army 
of the Potomac under Generals McClellan, Burn- 
side, and Hooker. Upon discharge March 14 
1863, assigned to special duty with General Seth 
Williams, Adjutant General of the Army of the 
Potomac, as scout and confidential despatch 
bearer. On the day after the assassination of Pres- 
ident Lincoln, reported to Secretary Stanton for 
duty as his door-keeper and body-guard, remaining 
with him day and night during the Johnson im- 
peachment trial. After Secretary Stanton's resig- 
nation, ordered to report to General Grant, at the 
White House, for duty as door-keeper to the 
President. Discharged from the Army July 17, 
1872, by order of President Grant, to accept civil 
appointment as door-keeper to the President 
serving in that capacity under Presidents Grant' 
Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison' 
Cleveland, McKinley, until July 10, 1898, when 
resigned to accept commission in the Army. 

"With Army of the Potomac, Headquarters at 
Manassas; participated in the siege of Yorktown 
April 5 to May 3, 1862; battles of Williamsburg' 
Va., May 5, 1862; Seven Pines and Fair Oaks, May 
31 and June 1, 1862; seven days' battles, including 
Mechanicsville, Gaines' Mill, Chicahominy, White 
Oak Swamp, Malvern Hill, from June 26 to July 1, 
1862; Harrison's Landing, Julv 2, 3, and 30, 1862,' 
bouth Mountain, September 14, 1862; Antietam, 
September 7, 1862; Fredericksburg, December 11 
to 16, 1862; Chancellorsville, May 1-4 1863- 
Gettysburg, July 1-3, 1863. 

"Residence: Canton, Stark Co., Ohio. Occupa- 
tion: Major U. S. A. (retired). 
"Recommended by Companions: 

"C. H. Grosvenor. 
''M. D. Kirk, 
"j. b. foraker. 
"Wm. R. McComas. 



10 

"(Major Loeffler was promulgated in Circular 
No. 12, Series of 1899, for Membership in the 
Commandery of the District of Columbia, and the 
application was withdrawn on May 3, 1899). 

Major Loeffler 's letter to Ohio Commandery. 

"Washington, D. C, October 27, 1904. 
"Major W. R. Thrall, 

''Recor'der of the Commandery of the State 
of Ohio, Military Order of the Loyal 
Legion of the United States, Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio. 

"Sir: My application for membership has, at 
my request, been postponed, and is republished, 
with note that (in 1899) I had filed similar applica- 
tion in Washington, fbr action at your November 
meeting, because of a publication by the Recorder 
of the Commandery of the District of Colum- 
bia, brought to my notice, to the effect that I re- 
side, own property, and pay taxes in the city of 
Washington, and had no legal residence at Canton, 
Ohio, asset forth in my said application. 

"I set forth in my original application to you 
that I had filed and withdrawn an application be- 
fore the Commandery of the District of Columbia, 
some years before, wishing, as I now wish, that the 
Ohio Commandery should act only with the full 
facts before it, to afford opportunity for which, 
particularly to my said accuser, of whom I 
promptly made demand that he should formally 
propound to you ail his alleged objections or 
charges, I asked the postponement. 

"Knowingly I have concealed nothing, and wish 
nothing concealed or smothered in the further 
proceedings, either of explanation or objection. 
Few Companions of the Loyal Legion in the 
United States, but know that, for 35 years, I haye 
been on duty at the White House. 

"I emphatically deny the making of any inten- 
tional or even careless misstatement, and repeat 
that my legal residence is Canton, Ohio, and never 
has been in the District of Columbia. If, for any 



11 

purpose, or under any construction of law, I may 
be said to have had a Washington residence as 
contradistinguished from official station, at any 
time in the past, the same was abandoned and lost, 
and Canton had become the residence of my 
choice, by election between the two, my only 
legal residence, before the filing of my said appli- 
cation. I further aver my belief that neither my 
said accuser nor any other person had sufficient 
excuse for asserting or professing to believe that 
any mis-statement or error had occurred in my 
said application. From my youth up my record 
has been open to the world. 

"Not for one moment of time since my major- 
ity, nor since first I saw the city, has Washington 
been my residence by choice or selection nor, 
during the same period, have 1 had any other 
legal residence than Canton; and of this I chal- 
lenge disproof. I was born in Germany, and prior 
to my first enlistment in my twenty-first year, 
had established no residence or domicil anywhere 
in the United States, of which I am a naturalized 
citizen. 

"As stated in my said application, from 1858 
until the present date, I have continuously been 
in the military or civil service of the Government 
of the United States, most of that time on duty 
at the headfiuarters of the Army in the field and 
at Washington. Since 1869, without intermission, 
I have had station at the private door of the 
President and Commander-in-Chief, and Washing- 
ton has been my abiding place for that and no 
other reason, because there, in general, were my 
official duties required to be performed. My 
tenure is subject to instant termination at the 
will of the President, and ever has been. My 
duties are temporary, not permanent. There has 
been nothing of a permanent nature in and about 
my employment and service, despite its length; 
and I understand that the character, not duration, 
governs. 

"Perhaps I may be pardoned for thinking that 
I have been continued during the full terms of 



12 



eight Presidents and Commanders-in-Chief, for 
cause deemed sufficient by them, and for taking 
credit that I have been removed or censured for 
no betrayal of their confidence. 

"I am advised, and so aver, that a soldier or 
officer of the United States Army, and as well one 
holding civil appointment requiring duty in the 
cit}'' of Washington, acquires no residence in the 
District of Columbia by reason only of his abode 
at the place where his duties have to be and are 
performed; and that the possession of property 
and the taxation thereof, or the contrary, neither 
strengthen nor weaken the fact of residence. 

"I also am advised and understand that, after 
retirement from active service, an officer of the 
Army may acquire a legal residence and domicil 
in one of the States as would a civilian. So long 
as I was a soldier, a civilian appointee unpro- 
tected by the civil service, therefore temporary 
only, or an officer upon the active list, likewise on 
duty that might be terminated at any moment by 
my superiors, I made no choice of and was with- 
out any legal residence, but, after I had been 
retired from active service, I made choice of and 
selected Canton, with the intention to make it my 
permanent residence, as I consider I have made it, 
and to have no other so long as I should live. 

"I also am advised, and under such advice in- 
sist, that under the Constitution of the Loyal 
Legion, a resident of the District of Columbia is 
not required to make application to the District 
Commandery, but is privileged to apply to such 
State Commandery as he may select. 

"At the time of my said application, or at any 
time prior to October 3d, 1904, when informed by 
Major Huxford, Recorder, etc., I did not know of 
any requirement that an application for member- 
ship in the Loyal Legion should be made to the 
State of the applicant's residence, therefore that 
did not influence me as to the place of filing; but, 
had I known, I should have filed in Ohio, as I 
have done, and nowhere else. 



13 

"I own real and personal property in the city 
of Washington, upon v/hich, necessarily I pay 
municipal taxes, but no other. I do not own the 
house in Washington which, with my family. I 
occupy as a dwelling. That house belongs to my 
wife, acquired otherwise than with moneys fur- 
nished by me, and I have no estate in it. She 
owns real and personal property in one of the 
States. 

"I own no property subject to taxation in Can- 
ton. While there, sometimes without and some- 
times with my wife — only once there, as I recollect, 
officially, we have resided in lodgings, for which I 
paid, as well as our board and other expenses. 
My name appears there as one of the witnesses to 
President McKinley's will. My choice and selec- 
tion of Canton as my legal residence and domicil 
was made within the past year, and so publicy de- 
clared. My application for membership originally 
was prepared while I held the rank of captain, 
and before my promotion to be major, upon the 
retired list. The rank afterwards was changed. 

"I presume that, in past years, I may have been 
described, and that description carried forward, 
as of the District of Columbia, where I long have 
had station, for want of a better address, but 
with my knowledge or direction, not within the 
current year. If the word residence, applied to 
the District of Columbia or any other place, prior 
to my choice of Canton, ever was used by me, of 
which I have no recollection, it was used in place 
of address, which, undeniably, has been Washing- 
ton for the greater part of the past forty years. For 
many years it has been my own and family's cus- 
tom to spend the summers and a part of the 
autumn months out of Washington, depending 
upon my official duties. 

"I prefer, as always I have preferred, to be 
enrolled through the Commandery of the State of 
Ohio, with very many of whose members my 
relations are exceedingly pleasant and congenial 
but more particularly because of my great regard 
and love for that one, my late immediate Com- 



14 



mander, whose body lies buried in his old home, 
which I have chosen as mine. If entitled to 
membership, I earnestly wish to be elected; but 
if not qualified to join in Ohio I would become a 
member by no other route. I respectfully sub- 
mit my election or rejection to the Commandery 
of Ohio, content to abide by its just and deliberate 
decision. 

"Whether, under all the circumstances, my 
accuser having, so far as I can learn, abandoned 
his charges and thereby confessed their weakness 
within the period specified in the demand upon 
him, I should be put to my defense, I do not 
attempt to decide; but it is due to the gentlemen 
with whom I would become associated, as well as 
to myself, that I should be full and frank con- 
cerning every matter that might be objected 
against me; therefore, this explanation. 

"So far as I have knowledge, information or be- 
lief. Major Huxford, Recorder, is my only enemy 
or unfriend in the District of Columbia, and I 
believe that it is not irrelevant to add that his is 
my first arraignment for infraction of law or good 
morals in my whole life, which has passed the 
67th milestone, while he, pointedly called upon, 
has failed to 'make good.' My discharges have 
been honorable, and my retirement not the mitiga- 
tion of a sentence of dismissal by the verdict of a 
court martial, but compulsory under the law, 'on 
account of age,' with the rank of Captain. I was 
promoted to be Major upon the retired list, under 
the act of 1904, because I had served without dis- 
credit as soldier and officer. 

"I subjoin a memorandum, furnished to me, 
which I adopt and make part hereof, of the au- 
thorities bearing upon the question of residence, 
quoting both from military and civil law. The 
above and foregoing I state upon m}' honor as an 
officer and a gentleman. 

"Very respectfully, 

Charles D. A. Loeffler, 

Major, U. S. A. 



15 

Memorandum of the Law of Residence of a Retired Officer 
of the Army, Whose Active Station has Been Wash- 
ington, for Many Years, as Applicable to His Eligibility 
to Membership in the Military Order of the Loyal Legion 
of the United States Through the Commandery of the 
State of Ohio. 

Status of a Retired Officer. 

McClure's Digest of Opinions of Judge Advocate 
General, section 2209 (1901): 

"Retired officers (except when assigned to duty 
under section 1259 R. S., or other statute), do 7iot 
exercise public office. They are in fact pensioners. 
The position and pay given them constitute a 
form of pension. They exercise no function and 
receive no emoluments of office, but are pen- 
sioners for past faithful service or disability con- 
tracted in the line of duty. Their condition and a 
public office have no characteristics in common."'" 
63, 472, February, 1894; Card 2301, May, 1896. 

"2. See People vs. Duane, 121 New York, 367, 
in which the Court of Appeals held that a retired 
officer did not hold an office within the meaning 
of the act authorizing the appointment of aque- 
duct commissioners and providing that 'they and 
their successors shall hold no other Federal, State, 
or municipal office.' " 
Contra: 

"The place and rank on the retired list held by 
an officer of the Army is a military office undeV 
the United States." 

SecondComptrollerNansur, February 24,1894. 
Tyler vs. U. S., 16 Court of Claims, 223.' 
Woods vs. U. S., 15 Court of Claims, 151- 

107 U. S., 414. 
In re Tyler, 18 Court of Claims, 25. 
Franklin vs. U. S., 29 Court of Claims, 6. 



16 

In re Winthrop, 31 Court of Claims, 25. 
U. S. vs. Tyler, 105 U. S., 244. 
Badeau vs. U. S., 130 U. S., 439. 
State vs. DeGrass, 53 Texas, 387. 
Case of Major Smith, 19 Opin., 263. 
Second Comptroller's Decision, Dec. 7. 
Case of Captain Geddes, Comptroller Treas- 
ury, Feb. 6, 1901. 

Question doubtful. 

20 Opin. Atty. Gen. U. S., 686. 

Major LoefRer is on duty under and by virtue of the 
following: 

"Provided, That the military storekeeper now 
on duty at the White House as doorkeeper to the 
President, may be continued in that employment, 
and shall receive the full pay and allowance of 
his grade from the date of his retirement until 
relieved by the President." 

Act of June 30, 1902, 32 Stat, at L., p. 511. 

Residence N'ot Acquired by Official Residence or 
Station or Employment in the District of 
Columbia. 

"It has uniformly been held that clerks and 

' other employees in the Government departments 

at Washington do not acquire a domicil there by 

their presence in discharge of their official duties." 

Jacobs' Law of Domicil, sec. 313, citing: 

Woodworth vs. St. Paul M. & M. Rwy. Co., 

18 Fed. Rep., 282 (Shiras). 
Atherton vs. Thornton, 8 N. H., 178. 
Tyler vs. Murray, 57 Md., 118. 
State vs. Gizzard, 89 N. C, 115. 
State vs. Dennis, 17 Fla., 389. 
Venable vs. Paulding, 19 Minn., 488. 



17 

"An assistant door-keeper of the United States 
House of Representatives does not, by reason of 
his presence at Washington during the sittings of 
Congress, lose his legal residence elsewhere." 

Yonkey vs. State, 27 Ind., 236. 

"Although the law required his office to be kept 
and his official duties to be performed at the 
Capital, the Auditor General of Pennsylvania, 
whose term was three years, did not acquire a 
domicil at Harrisburg." 

Dauphin County vs. Banks, 1 Pears., 40. 

"The term residence is more indefinite than 
dwelling house. Where a statute required service 
to be at the usual place of abode, service at a 
defendant's residence held defective." 

Lewis vs. Botkin, 4 W. Va., 538. 

McCIure's Digest of Opinions of Judge Advocate Gen- 
eral, 1901: 

"Sec. 2197. The fact that an officer is stationed 
within a particular State or Territory does not 
make the same his legal residence, since he is 
there, not of his own will or choice, but in obedi- 
ence to the order of a superior, and, moreover, 
can have no animus manendi, subject as he is to 
be removed at any moment by a similar order to 
a station in a different State or Territory." 

Citing Graham vs. Commonwealth, 51 Pa. 

St., 258. 
Wood vs. Fitzgerald and Wingate, 3 Oregon, 

368. 
G. 0. No. 13, First Mil. Dist., 1868. 
Taylor vs. Reading, 4 Brewst., 439. 
Devlin vs. Anderson, 38 Cal., 192. 
Opin XXIX, 85, July, 1869. 

McCIure's Digest, sec. 2427: 

"The question of residence is one of personal 
intent, an act of will being necessary to acquire 



18 



it. The abiding of an officer of the Army at his 
station is, therefore, both involuntary and tem- 
porary, and it is in general much more reasonably 
presumable that an official station is not his resi- 
dence than that it is such." 

XXX, 215, March, 1870. 

" No inference (of intention to acquire a domicil 
at the place where his duties are to be performed) 
is to be drawn from length of residence (by one 
holding a public office or employment), nor, at 
least generally, from the presence of his wife and 
family, nor from such similar circumstances as 
usually accompany residence, whether temporary 
or permanent." 

Jacobs Law of Domicil, sec. 314. 

" Exceptions are the case of a majority of the 
officers on the retired list. In any such exceptional 
case, the question of residence, which is at all 
doubtful, will, in the main, as in the case of civil- 
ians, be determined by the evidence of an animus 
manendi as exhibited by the acts and declarations 
of the party." 

XXIX, 85, July, 1869. 

XXX, 315, 528, March and July, 1870. 

"Many State constitutions contain, with refer- 
ence to voting, a provision that 'no person shall 
be deemed to have gained a residence by reason 
of his presence or lost it by reason of his ab- 
sence while employed in the service either civil or 
military, of this State or of the United States.' " 

Jacobs' Law of Domicil, sec, 316. 

"No person in the military, naval or marine 
service of the United States shall, by being sta- 
tioned in any garrison or military or naval sta- 
tion within the State, be considered a resident of 
this State." 

Sec. 2, Art. V, Constitution of the State of 
Ohio. 



19 

Ow7iership and Taxation of Property iii Wash- 
ington Create no Presumption of Residence. 

" That a person shall be a resident or inhabitant 
of a State is not essential to render him or his 
property taxable. The power of a State to tax, 
which is 'one of the attributes of sovereignty,' 
extends to all subjects, person, property, or busi- 
ness within its jurisdiction, and it may, as a gen- 
eral rule, legally tax personal property held or 
being within its limits, without regard to the 
domicil of the owner." 

See case of State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 
15 Wall., 319. 

R. R. Co. vs. Peniston, 18 Wall., 29. 

Duer vs. Small, 8 Blatch., 265. 

People vs. McCreery, 34 Cal., 432. 

Hanson t's. Vernon, 27 Iowa, 48. 

City of Philadelphia vs. Tryon, 35 Pa. St. Rep., 
404. 

14 Opin. Atty. Gen., 200. 

Intentions and Declarations of Person Chang- 
ing his Residence Govern. 

"Upon the question of a person's intention in 
changing his residence, as affecting his domicil, 
while his actions are the best evidence, his own 
testimony may be considered, a7id will he con- 
trolling, when it is not inconsistent with his 
actions or declarations." 

Collins ys. City of Ashland, 112 F., 175. 

In McDaniel vs. King, 5 Cush., 459, Shaw, C. J., said: 

"The principle seems to be well settled that 
every person must have a domicil, and that he 
can have but one domicil for one purpose at the 
same time. It follows, of course, that he retains 



20 



one until he acquires another, and that by acquir- 
ing another, eo instanti, and by that act, he loses 
his next previous one." 

Note, sec. 174, Jacobs Law of Domicil, numer- 
ous cases cited. 

"A residence, however short, if taken animo 
manendi, establishes the domicil." 

Johnson vs. Falconer, 2 Pa., 602. 

"It is not necessary, however, that the animus 
should be present at the time of removal. It may 
grow up afterwards and engraft itself upon a resi- 
dence originally taken for a special or temporary 
purpose, so as to transmute it into a domicil." 

Jacobs Law of Domicil, sec. 178, citing Udney 
vs. Udney, L. R. (Sch. App., 441), in which 
it was said : 

"Residence originally temporary, or intended 
for a limited period, may afterwards become gen- 
eral and unlimited; and in such a case, so soon as 
the change of purpose or animus manendi can be 
inferred, the fact of domicil is established." 

"It is not necessary, in order to effect a change 
of domicil, that the party have obtained a right 
to vote or hold office." 

Burnham vs. Rangeley, 1 W. & M., 7. 

"Residence elsewhere casts upon him who denies 
it to be a domicil of choice, the burden of disprov- 
ing it." 

Ennis vs. Smith 14 H., 401. 
Burnham vs. Rangeley. 1 W. & M., 7. 
Prentiss vs. Barton, 1 Brock., 393. 

"The noted case of Nathaniel Thayer vs. Boston, 
reported in 124 Mass., at p. 132, wherein the 
plaintiff sued to recover back tax paid under pro- 
test, is on all fours with that of Major LoefHer, 



21 

except not coupled with official residence, there- 
tore lacking one incontrovertible defense. Thayer, 
one of the richest men in New England, had, since 
his coming of age, perhaps longer, been an inhabi- 
tant of Boston, and resided there and paid taxes, 
his family residing with him. His dwelling-house, 
office, account-books, business were there, and 
on the day of his assessment for taxes. May 1, 
1876, he was with his famih^, in actual occupa- 
tion of his house in Boston, which he admitted at 
the trial was, and had been, ever since he was 
married, the principal place of his social and do- 
mestic life, and where the greater part of his fam- 
ily expenditures had been made. That he thought 
he did no act to change his residence in 1869, 
when he claimed to have changed, except to give 
notice to the assessors of Boston that he would 
pay no more taxes in Boston, and to the assessors 
of Lancaster, in which he had erected a dwelling 
several years before upon land belonging to him 
by descent from his father, that he had removed 
his residence to the latter place. It was notor- 
iously the fact and not denied, that the change of 
residence was to avoid the payment of taxes in 
Boston, mainly upon other than real property. 
Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, and re- 
fused to be opened by the court, on motion 
therefor. 

"In charging the jury, the court said: 
" 'The fact that any man changes his home or his 
domicil for the purpose of avoiding or escaping 
or lessening his taxes, is of no consequence what- 
ever .... In the first place, in determin- 
ing the question where was the plaintiff's residence 
or domicil, or home on May 1, 1876, the fact of 
his personal presence in Boston at that time is 
not conclusive. 

" 'A man may have his home in one place and 
yet be personally present in Boston, so that the 
fact that he was personally present and living in 
his house in Boston, with his family, would not 
by itself be conclusive that Boston was at that 
time his residence.' 



22 



''In this case, Mr. Thayer was a private citizen 
only, not a military or civil officer, and at the 
date of the litigation, had retired from business 
(since 1865), and for the preceding 11 years had 
been engaged in no business, except looking after 
his property, largely in Boston, and had nothing 
but his own desires or pleasures to keep him in 
that city. All his life, since his majority, Boston 
had been the place where Mr. Thayer and his fam- 
ily had actually lived, except when away for the 
summer or other vacations. Boston was his home, 
his headquarters, the place to which he always 
permanently returned after every absence; yet, 
the judgment of the court was that the residence 
of his choice was his legal residence, and what he 
said about it, what he declared to be his inten- 
tions absolutely controlled. 

"In discussing the question whether a person 
having two residences may select his place of 
domicil, 

"Shaw, C. J., in Lyman vs. Fiske, 17 Pick., 231 
quoted at sec. 424 of Jacobs Law of Domicil, said : 

"'It is often a question of great difficulty, de- 
pending upon minute and complicated circum- 
stances, leaving the question in so much doubt 
that a slight circumstance may turn the balance. 
In such a case the mere declaration of the party, 
made in good faith, of his election to make the 
one place rather than the other his home, would 
be sufficient to turn the scale. But it is a ques- 
tion of fact for the jury, to be determined from 
all the circumstances of the case.' 

" Tfte Case of Majoi' James H. Reeve. 

"The decision of theCommandery-in-Chief in the 
case of Brevet-Major James H. Reeve, formerly 
Captain of the 3rd New York Infantry Volunteers, 
now a Companion, affiliated through the Com- 
mandery of the District of Columbia, is understood 
to have been quoted, and to be relied upon, as a 
precedent to govern this case. 

"That decision, conceding it to be right for the 



23 



purposes of this discussion, is not and can not 
be considered a precedent of any value in a case 
like the present, for the following reasons: 

"i. Major Reeve is a permanent employee of 
the Post-Office Department in the city of Wash- 
ington, protected by the Civil Service; therefore 
he may have a legal residence within the District 
of Columbia. 

" 2. It was charged and not denied, on the con- 
trary admitted, that Major Reeve was in 1897, and 
had been since 1879, a period of 18 years, a resi- 
dent of Washington, D. C. This appears to have 
been conceded both by himself and by the Com- 
mandery of the the State of New York. 

"3. It does not appear that any attention was 
called to to the omission from section 1, Article 
VI, of the Constitution of the Loyal Legion, or 
any point made,of any requirement that residents 
of the District of Columbia must apply for mem- 
bership through the Commandery of the District, 
or that more than a pro forma consideration and 
decision occurred. 

"4. That decision, in view of the omission from 
section 1, Article VI, of the Constitution, of any 
requirement that residents of the District of Co- 
lumbia should apply through the Commandery of 
that District, the proviso applying only to resi- 
dents of States within which were established 
Commanderies, was erroneous and should be re- 
viewed. The record shows that it was improvi- 
dently entered without such discussion and con- 
sideration as the importance of the question 
demanded. 

"5. MajorLoeffler is temporarily not permanently 
employed in the city of Washington; he is a resident 
of Ohio, in which is a Commandery of the Order, and 
not a resident of the District of Columbia, where- 
fore, under the requirements of said section and 
article, he may apply only in Ohio, and nowhere 
else; he asserts and shows his above status, and 
there is no sufficient or any denial or proof to the 
contrary. Also, he questions the validity of the 



24 

moot decision in the Reeve case, except so far as 
it may have been acquiesced in by the applicant. 
"The entire record is copied from the Journals 
of the Commandery-in-Chief, commencing at page 
23, of the session of 1897. 

"Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the 
United States, 

Commandery of the District of Columbia. 

"Washington, February 2, 1897. 

"At a regular meeting of the board of officers 
held on this day it was by unanimous vote, 

" Resolved, That this board holds the order 
of ths Commandery of the State of New York in 
accepting the application of Brevet Major James 
H. Reeve, late U. S. Volunteers, a resident of the 
city of Washington, D. C, since the year 1879, 
for admission to the Order through that Com- 
mandery and electing said Reeve to membership 
therein, to have been in violation of section 1, 
Article VI of the Constitution, and hereby earn- 
estly request the Commander-in-Chief of the 
Order to direct the Insignia and Diploma of 
Membership be not issued to said Reeve until 
after the Commandery-in-Chief shall have decided 
that the action of the Commandery of the State 
of New York was legal and authorized. 

"Attest: W. P. Huxford, Recorder. 

"To the Commander-in-Chief, Military Order 
of the Loyal Legion, of the United States: 

" The Recorder-in-Chief moved that the com- 
munication and correspondence, with all the 
papers in the case be referred to a committee of 
three for report. The motion was adopted. 

"Commander-in-Chief Gheradi ai)pointed on the 
committee. 

''Companions A. Noel Blakeman, 
"J. T. Haskell, 

"R. S. COLLUM. 



25 

^'At page 34 same journal: 

"Companion A. Noel Blakeman, chairman of 
the committee to whom was referred the election 
of Major James H. Reeve, submitted the followingt 

"In the Case of Major Jaiiies H. Reeve. 

"It is the opinion of the committee that under 
section 1, Article VI of the Constitution, Brevet 
Major J. H. Reeve can only be admitted to mem- 
bership in the Commandery of the District of 
Columbia, where he resides. This opinion is 
respectfully referred to the New York Com- 
mandery as the final judgment of the Commandery- 
in-Chief, with the recommendation that the Com- 
mandery reconsider its action on December 2, 
1876. 

"A. Noel Blakeman, 
"J. T. Haskell, 
"Richard S. Collum." 

"Companion Wm. H. Van Reypen submitted 
the following: 

"'Resolved, That the report of the committee 
be adopted as the judgment of the Commandery 
in-Chief. 

"The resolution was unanimously adopted.' 

"The recommendation of the Commandery-in- 

Chief not its order is understood to 

have been accepted by the Commandery of the 
State of New York, after which Major Reeve affil- 
iated through the Commandery of the District 
of Columbia, of which he is now a Companion in 
good standing. 

"Application to the Ohio Commandery After 
having Filed and Withdrawn Applicatio7i to 
the Commandery of the District of Columbia. 

"Major (then captain) Loeffler made application 
to the Commandery of the District of Columbia, 



26 

in 1899, but withdrew his application on May 3d, 
of the same year, before report of the investigat- 
ing committee. 

"The provisions of the Loyal Legion Constitu- 
tion applicable thereto are: 

'"Sec. 4. An application for membership may 
be withdrawn before report thereon, or after 
favorable report and before ballot; but if the re- 
port be unfavorable, the candidate must be 
balloted for.' 

'"Sec. 8. If an applicant be rejected, such 
action shall be communicated to all Commander- 
ies, and he shall be thereafter forever ineligible 
for election, except after one year in the Com- 
mandery by which he was rejected; and then only 
by unanimous ballot.' 

Article VL 

"More than five years had elapsed subsequent 
to Major LoefRer's application and withdrawal in 
the Commandery of the District of Columbia be- 
fore his application of 1904 came up for action in 
the Commandery of the State of Ohio; and the 
withdrawal, under the attending circumstances, 
constituted his status in 1904 as if he never had 
previously applied anywhere. 

"Should he now be rejected in the Commandery 
of the State of Ohio, whether for non-residence 
or any other cause, he would be eligible for elec- 
tion only in the same Commandery, after one 
year; he never could be acquired by the some- 
what covetous Commandery of the District of 
Columbia. Granted that the objection as to resi- 
dence be well founded, and this applicant should 
be rejected for that reason, under the most strict 
and literal reading of the Constitution, one year 
after his rejection he would be eligible for admis- 
sion through the Commandery of the State of 
Ohio, and only that Commandery; and none 
could say him nay. 

"An instance of the election of an applicant to 



27 



another Commandery after his withdrawal of an 
application is the case of 

"Colonel John J. O'Connell, 30th U. S. Infantry, 
now stationed at Fort Crook, Nebraska, then a 
captain of engineers. He applied to the Com- 
mandery of the State of Ohio, May 4th, 1887; 
withdrew his application after publication but 
before report of investigating committee; subse- 
quently was elected and installed through the 
Commandery of the State of California, and is now 
a Companion of the Commandery of the District 
of Columbia. 

"Other cases might be cited." 



A Resident of the District of Columbia, Otherwise 
Qualified, May Apply to Such Commayidery as He 
May Select. 

The Commandery of the District of Columbia was 
instituted February 1, 1882, an earlier attempt at organ- 
ization having failed. 

At this date the Constitution contained no limitation 
upon application, and an applicant might file in any 
Commandery. 

After the institution of the Commandery of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, the Constitution was amended in 
many respects. 

Section 2, Article IV, was amended so that it now 
reads : 

"Sec. 2. There shall be but one Commandery 
in each State, which shall be designated as 'The 

Commandery of the State of ,' excepting the 

Commandery of the District of Columbia, which 
shall be designated as such." 

Article VI, Election of Members, was amended to read: 

"Section 1. Every application for membership 
shall be made to the Commandery of the State 



28 

in which the applicant resides, if a Commandery 
exists therein, and if there be none, then to such 
Commandei^y as the applicant may selects 

This last-named section was adopted at the Congress 
of the Order held in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1889, after the 
institution of the Commandery of the District of Co- 
lumbia, and after the provision for the designation and 
recognition of that Commandery in section 2, Article IV. 
It is clear that a resident of the District of Columbia 
is, in terms, excluded from the restrictions imposed upon 
the resident of a State within which is a Commandery, 
as to place of application. It is equally clear that this 
was the result of deliberation and design and not of 
accident or carelessness. Carelessness could not be at- 
tributed to the scrupulously technical Companions who 
have so faithfully and zealously guarded the rights and 
appanages of the Order. Many reasons will suggest 
themselves for this omission of the District Commandery 
from Article VI. That Commandery is sui generis. It 
was well known that, in the main, it would be recruited 
from and supported by temporary sojourners in the 
National Capital, mostly present and former officers of 
the regular establishment, with their likes, dislikes, and 
club and social associations; that those former officers 
of volunteers who might affiliate therewith would, as a 
rule, not be residents of Washington or there in any 
permanent way. All would have membership for social 
purposes and little else. It also was recognized that 
very many ex-officers, entitled to membership, holding 
some official appointment or employment in Washington, 
yet would retain their State residences, citizenships, 
clubs, lodges, homes, and would care neither to 
join the Commandery of the District of Columbia 
as original members or by transfer. Undeniably, 
this condition of things has resulted, and, undoubtedly 



29 

was anticipated by the wisdom of the framers of the 
Constitution. Not a tithe of the nonresident and non- 
affiliating Companions in Washington may be found in 
any other State or city in the Union. The Commandery 
of the State of Ohio has about a dozen of its Companions 
in the District of Columbia during a greater part of the 
year; other Commanderies may have more. All this 
must have been foreseen, and that the States of which 
they were resident citizens would naturally contain the 
Commandery upon which only they would wish to be 
permanently enrolled. Citizenship, legal residence, may 
be in one of the States only; a resident of the District 
of Columbia has neither the right to vote nor any other 
right save whatever Congress, in its kindness may permit 
by affirmative legislation, whereas the citizen-resident 
of the States possesses every right and privilege sched- 
uled in or reasonably inferred from the Constitution of 
the United States. That was settled m the* Insular 
Cases. It was the legal residence that was meant when 
the word "State" was inserted and the words "District 
of Columbia" omitted in section 1, Article VI of the 
Loyal Legion Constitution. If it be claimed that the 
limitation was to enable an applicant to be judged by 
his neighbors, the answer is that every application to 
every Commandery is published in circular form and 
furnished to every other Commandery, including the 
District of Columbia, and thereby to every Companion 
of the Order, not merely to those of the applicant's im- 
mediate vicinage. A Companion is a member of the 
Loyal Legion of the United States, not alone of the 
Commandery in which he is enrolled, and he has the right 
and privilege to attend the meetings of any Commandery 
where he may be on a meeting night, and to speak and 
to vote therein. So the rule works both ways; any Com- 
panion of the Order may object to any applicant, the 
Companion in Maine to the applicant in California, al- 
though it is not known whether Companions outside the 



30 

District of Columbia are accustomed to exercise the 
right, particularly except pro bonos mores. 

But, whatever may have been the reasons or intentions 
of the Congress of 1889, there is no requirement that a 
resident of the District of Columbia must apply to that 
Commandery. He may apply to the Commandery of his 
choice, unless he also be the resident of one of the 
States in which is a Commandery of the Order, and then 
he must apply to the latter. It would seem that the 
Constitution makes precise provision for just such as 
the case of this applicant, Major Loeffler. If he resides 
only in Washington, he may apply to "such Commandery 
as he may select," whether in one of the States or in the 
District. If, also, he has a residence in Ohio, he must 
apply to the Commandery of that State. At best, from 
the claim of the District of Columbia, this is a casus 
omissus, and can be corrected only by the Congress. 
Until so corrected the Constitution must be accepted as 
it reads. 

Under section 3, Article XVI of the Constitution, "the 
chief executive and supreme judicial power (of the Order) 
shall be vested in the Commandery-in-Chief," but that 
expression, like all charters, constitutions, by-laws, and 
other rules of societies or corporations must be under 
and subject to the law of the land, and be construed 
according to the general rules of legal definitions. It is 
settled law that the mention of the State Commanderies, 
and the studied omission to mention the District Com- 
mandery in section 1, Article VI of the Constitution ex- 
cludes the District and does not restrict residents of the 
District to that Commandery. 

Additional Memoranda as to Residence. 

Jacobs' Law of Domicil: 

"The fundamental idea of domicil is home, and 
as a man does not lose his home in fact by mere 
absence, so he can not lose his home in law from 



31 

the same cause. Indeed, nothing is better settled 
than that absence for a temporary purpose cum 
animo revertendi is not sufficient to work a change 
of domicil (6). And it makes no difference whether 
such absences are for business, pleasure, health, 
or personal securit}', nor to what length of time 
it is prolonged, intention to return at a future 
time, however remote, being sufficient to retain 
domicil (7). Sailors absent on long voyages (8), 
soldiers or embassadors (10) absent in the service 
of their sovereign, and fugitives from political 
persecution (11) are examples of the application of 
the principle; they are presumed to retain their 
former domicil because their absence is not incon- 
sistent with intention to return. 

"Sec. 152. Absence for 47 years in the maritime 
service held not to have worked a change of 
domicil in the absence of proof of animus 7ion 
7'evertendi.'' 

A French refugee's twenty years residence in England 
held not to have lost his French domicil. 

An Englishman held to have retained his English 
domicil after twenty-three years residence in France. 

A Scotchman resident in India twenty-five years on 
business, held not to have lost his Scotch domicil, as it 
appeared that he intended to return to his native country 
after acquiring a fortune in India. 

A Frenchman was held to have retained his French 
domicil after an absence in trade of twenty-nine years. 

An American was held not to have lost his domicil by 
forty-eight years absence for business and pleasure. 
1 Wall., Jr., Ct. Ct., 217. 

"Sec. 155. Accordingly, it has been decided that 
one who left England and went to India for the 
purpose of making his fortune in private business, 
intending finally to return, did not lose his Eng- 
lish domicil, although he remained in India 
twenty-five years and died there. 



32 



"And such was the doctrine of the Dutch 
jurists even with regard to persons who went to 
India in the service of the Dutch East India Com- 
pany. Thus it was held by a high authority, 
Groenwegen, that a person whose domicil was at 
Delft, having with a view to make his fortune, 
gone to the East Indies in the service of that 
Company, and died there, was at the time of his 
death domiciled atDelt. Such, too, was the opinion 
of John Voet. 



Note. — It follows from the authorities quoted upon 
animo manendi and cmimus 7ionrevertendi, or animo rer- 
ertendi, that it is impossible to obtain a decision of any 
court against the evidence of the person interested, 
which "will be controlling," as was held in 

Collins vs. City of Ashland, 112 F., 175; 



and that "the mere declaration of the party, made in 
good faith, of his election to make the one place rather 
than the other his home, would be sufficient to turn the 
scales." 

Lyman vs. Fiske, 17 Pick., 231, quoted at sec. 424, 
Jacob's Law of Domicil. 



The party himself decides the question, and no other 
persons or court may take away from him the right and 
power so to decide. His decision settles it, and the 
burden of proof is upon whoever challenges his mere 
declaration of choice. 

Therefore, without some contradictory declaration, or 
fact equivalent, it is folly to attack the domicil of 
choice. 



33 

Major Huxford's Objections. 

" Military Order of the Loyal Legion 

OF THE United States, 

Commandery of the District of Columbia. 

".Headquarters, Room 33 Kellogg Building, 

City of Washington. 

"Major W. P. Huxford, U. S. A., 

Iiecoi'de7\ 

October 29, 1904. 
" Dear Sir and Companion: I have the honor to 
herewith transmit a duly attested excerpt from 
the minutes of a meeting (first of the season 
1904-5), of the board of officers of this Command- 
ery, holden 27th instant, relative to the applica- 
tion of Major Charles David Adam Loeffler for 
admission to membership in the Order through 
the Commandery of the State of Ohio. 

"Requesting an acknowledgment of the receipt 
of the same at your early convenience thereafter 
I am, 

"Yours respectfully, 

" W. P. Huxford, 

Recorder 
" Major W. R. Thrall, 

Recorder. 
"Cincinnati, Ohio. 
"One enclosure." 

" Military Order of the Loyal Legion 

OF the United States, 

"Commandery of the District of Columbia, 

City of Washington. 

"Meeting of the Board of Officers. 

"October 27, 1904. 

"Excerpt from Minutes. 

"The Recorder called the attention of the Board 
to so much of circulars 33 and 36, current series, 
whole Nos. 622 and 625, respectively, of the Com- 
mandery of the State of Ohio, as promulgates the 

4119—3 



34 



application of Major Charles David Adam Loeffler 
for membership in the Order through that Com- 
mander}', and after mature deliberation it was 
unanimously voted that the Board, through the 
Recorder, make known to said Commandery for 
its consideration previous to action on the appli- 
cation: That said Leoffler applied for membership 
in the Order through the Commandery of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia on April IS, 1899, giving Wash- 
ington, D. C, as his 'place of residence;' that the 
application was duly promulgated in its Circular 
12, series of 1899, whole No. 210, and was referred 
to a Committee of Investigation on April 20 fol- 
lowing, and that it was withdrawn by him on May 
3d ensuing before report thereon, for the reason 
that he had learned that a sufficient number of 
objections to have caused an unfavorable report, 
and consequent rejection at the stated meeting of 
that date had been communicated to the Com- 
mittee by Companions of the Commandery. 

"That the Board believes and asserts, bona 
fide, that said Leoffiler had not resided (in the 
proper and germane significance of the word), in 
'Canton, Stark County, Ohio,' prior to the making 
of his application to the Commandery of said 
State; that he did not so reside when making it, 
and that he has not at any time since been a resi- 
dent thereof, but that Washington, D. C.,has been 
his 'place of residence' for over forty years. 

"That, in view of the foregoing facts, the Board 
is constrained to hold, and respectfully submiits, 
that under the mandatory provisions of section 1, 
Article VI, Constitution, and the decisions of the 
Commaiidery-in-Chief in re Reeve (see Thirteenth, 
1898, Journal, pages 23,36; and Fourteenth, 1889, 
Journal, pages 91-2, 110-14),* the application of 
Loeffler to the Commandery of the State of Ohio 
was illegal and ought not to be favorably acted 
upon thereby. 

"That although so doing should be and probably 
is needless, the Board deems it pertinent to ex- 

* Should be 13th, 1897, and 14th, 1898. 



35 

pressly disclaim aii}^ intention, by its procedure, 
of in any wise reflecting upon the integrity of the 
action of the Commandery of the State of Ohio in 
accepting the application in question, since it was, 
of course, regular and based upon the averment 
therein as to the applicant's i)lace of residence. 

"A true copv. Attest: 

" W. P. HlIXFORD, 

Recorder. 
" To the Commandery of the State of Ohio, 
" Military Order of the Loyal Legion." 

And protest was made against any statement of Major 
Huxford, unless accompanied and supported by cor- 
roborative proofs, being taken and considered as evi- 
dence, because of his disqualification as a credible wit- 
ness by reason of the circumstances set forth in 
paragraph 15, special orders No. 217, War Department, 
A. G. 0., of date September 10, 1868, also published at 
page 74 of the Army and Navy Journal, of date Septem- 
ber 19, 1868. 

The verdict of the court-martial, not having been dis- 
approved, only the extreme sentence, mitigated to retire- 
ment not statutory nor honorable, stands as the finality 
of the case, and the offense for which convicted involv- 
ing gross moral turpitude, ordinarily classed as infamous, 
the verdict carried with it disqualification of the wit- 
ness forever thereafter to give evidence. 

The proceedings of the court-martial were promul- 
gated as follows: 

Headquarters of the Army, 

Adjutant-General's Office. 

Washington, 

September 10, 1868. 
Special Orders No. 217. 

Extract. 

"15. Brevet-Major William P. Huxford, captain 
Forty-second U. S. Infantry (Veteran Reserve 



36 

Corps), having been tried by a general court -mar- 
tial, convened at Madison Barracks, New York, by- 
Special Orders No. 95, May 23, 1868, from Head- 
quarters Department of the East, for 

disobedience of orders; 

violation of the 36th Article of War; 

deglect of duty; 

false muster in violation of the 10th Article 
of War; 

making a false return in violation of the 18th 
Article of War, and conduct unbecoming 
an officer and a gentleman, 
and has been found guilty under the 1st, 3d, 4th, 
5th, and 6th charges, was sentenced by the court 
" To he cashiered, and to he thereafter utterly 
disabled to have or hold any office or employment 
in the service of the United States.'' 

" The court, however, united in recommending 
a commutation of the sentence to suspension from 
rank and pay for such a period as might be deemed 
right and proper by the reviewing officer, in con- 
sideration of the youth and faithful services of 
the accused, as tvell as the morbid state of his 
health, resulting from wounds received in service; 
and — 

The judgeadvocate general, after a review of the 
proceedings of the court has expressed the belief 
that the evidence adduced at the trial fails to 
establish the necessity or propriety of dishonor- 
ably ejecting from the service a soldier who has 
fought so well and endured so much for his coun- 
try, and advised that the accused be placed upon 
the retired list; 

"A board of examination, before which the 
accused was accordingly ordered, having found 
him, Brevet-Major Huxford, 'incapacitated for ac- 
tive service, and for service in the Veteran Reserve 
Corps, by reason of epileptic fits resulting from a 
gun-shot wound received at the battle of Ma'vern 
Hill, Virginia, July 1, 1862, while a private soldier 



37 

in the Fourth Michigan Volunteers, 'the President 
directs that he be retired from active service, 
with pay proper alone in accordance with the 
provisions of section 17 of the act approved 
August 3, 1861. 

"By command of General Grant. 

"E. D. TOWNSEND, 

"Assistant Adjutant General. 
"Note. — Published at page 74, Army and Navy 
Journal, Sept. 19, 1868." 



Mem. — Although "approved" does not, in haec verba, 
appear in the order (which is a special not court martial 
order), yet, as disapproval would have permitted no ac- 
tion thereunder, the mitigation, following the recitals in 
the preamble, and based thereon, is in legal force and 
effect an approval of the sentence, which stands today 
as the finality of the case. The sentence of a court mar- 
tial must be either approved, disapproved, or held in 
abeyance; the only action can be approval or disap- 
proval. Quite summary action was taken under this 
sentence, which was approved but modified so as to be 
practically as severe, because cutting off all future ex- 
cept the pension. 

Major Loefjier's Election. 

After a full discussion. Major Loeffler was unanimously 
elected and his election duly promulgated in Circular 

No. , Series of 1904, Commandery of the State of 

Ohio. 

At the annual meeting of the Commandery-in-Chief at 
Philadelphia, October 11, 1905, the following proceed- 
ings were had: 



38 

"Extract From Journal of 2 Ut Annual Meeting, 
Philadelphia, October 11, 1905. 

"Registrar-in-Chief Huxford submitted the fol- 
lowing: 

p. 49. "Military Order of the Loyal Legion 
OF THE United States, 

"Commandery of the District of Columbia, 
"City of Washington. 

"October 9, 1905. 
"Colonel John P. Nicholson, Recorder-in-Chief. 

"Dear Sir and Companion: I have the honor 
to request that the enclosed communication and 
accompanying exhibits may be submitted to the 
Commandery-in-Chief at its annual meeting on the 
11th instant, for reference to a committee to con- 
sider the matter to which they relate and to re- 
port its conclusions and recommendations at the 
annual meeting of 1906. 

"Yours respectfully, 

"W. P. Huxford, Recorder. 

"Companion Henry L. Swords moved that the 
documents be referred to a committee of three 
for examination and report. 

"The motion was adopted. 

"Commander-in-Chief Brooke appointed as the 
committee Companions A. Noel Blakeman, William 
H. Lambert, and Henry L. Swords. 

"Note. — The committee of which Companion 
Blakeman was chairman made no report at the 
22d annual meeting, held in the city of New York, 
and, if Major Loeffler was indeed the subject- 
matter of the reference to that committee, no 
mention of his name was made at said 22d meet- 
ing, nor was mention made by or of the committee 
or its business. 

"Companions Huxford, Blakeman, Swords, were 
present at the 1906 meeting. 

"Neither Companion Loeffler nor the Ohio Com- 



39 

mandery were advised that Major Loeffler's elec- 
tion was the matter referred to in the October 9, 
1905, letter of Recorder Huxford." 

No report was made and no action was taken in this 
matter at tha annual m^atin^ of the Commandery-in- 
Chief, in 1906, and the Committee expired. 

At the annual meeting in Philadelphia October 16, 
1907, the following proceedings were had: 

''Extract From Journal of 23d Annual Meeting, 
Philadelphia, October 16, 1907. 

"Companion A. Noel Blakeman, chairman of the 
committee to whom was referred the communica- 
tion of the Recorders of the Commandery of the 
District of Columbia, Oct. 9, 1905. 

P- 262. Journal (21st), 1905, pp. 49. 

"Requested further time for the consideration 
of the subject and examination of the documents 
and until the session of 1908. 

"Registrar-in-Chief Huxford moved that the re- 
quest of the Committee be granted. 

"The motion was adopted. 

"Note — There also is no reference to Major 
Loeffler in the proceedings, and neither he nor the 
Ohio Commandery was notified that his election 
was the subject-matter of the October 9, 1905, 
communication of the Recorder of the District of 
Columbia Commandery." 

At the annual meeting at Burlington, Vermont, 
September 30, 1908, the following proceedings were had: 

''Extract From Journal of 24th Annual Meeting, 
Burlington Vermont, Sept. 30, 1908. 

"Companian A.Noel Blakeman, chairman of the 
committee to whom was referred the election 
through the Commandery of the State of Ohio, of 



40 

Major Charles D. A. Loeffler, to membership, re- 
ported that committee requested further time. 

p. 374. 21st Journal, 1905, page 49; 23d Journal, 1907, 
page 262. 

"Registrar-in-Chief Huxford moved the request 
of the committee be granted until the annual ses- 
sion, 1909. 

"The motion was adopted."' 

At the annual meeting held at Philadelphia September 
20, 1909, the following proceedings were had: 

p. 38. "Companion A. Noel Blakeman, chairman of the 
committee, consisting of Companions A. Noel 
Blakeman, Henry L. Swords and William H. Lam- 
bert, to which were referred the papers in the case 
of the membership of Major Charles D. A. Loeffler, 
stated that the committee were ready to report. 

"Registrar-in-Chief Huxford moved that the 
Commandery-in-Chief proceed to the considera- 
ation of the report. 

"The motion was adopted.'' 

21st Journal, 1905, page 49; 23rd Journal, 
1907, page 262; 24th Journal, 1908, page 
374. 



To the Co }timanderi/-i)i- Chief : 

The committee appointed to consider the Loeffler case 
respectfully submit the following: 

"Captain Charles David Adam Loeffler made 
application for membership in this Order, through 
the Commandery of the District of Columbia 
during the month of April, 1899, giving his resi- 
dence as Washington, D. C, but before the Com- 
mandery took action thereon, the application was 
p. 39. withdrawn. 

"During the month of September, 1904, this 



41 

officer again made application for membership in 
the Order, this time through the Commandery of 
Ohio, giving his residence as Canton, Stark County, 
Ohio, and was duly elected in that Commandery, 
November 2, 1904. 

"It appears from an interview with Major Hux- 
ford, Recorder of the District of Columbia Com- 
mandery, Major Loeffler admitted that he was not 
then and never had been a resident of Canton, 
Stark County, Ohio, but that there was a proba- 
bility that at some future time he might reside 
there. Although he was advised to withdraw his 
application, because of this misstatement of fact, 
he did not do so, but allowed his election to pro- 
ceed as stated above. 

"It is a well-known fact that Major Loeffler has 
been a resident of the city of Washington for 
many years past and has occupied a prominent 
position during these years in the White House. 

"The Commandery-in-Chief has twice upheld 
the provision of the Constitution contained in 
section 1, Article VI, and which has been violated 
by Major Loeffler. First in the case of Reeves, 
Journal of the Commandery-in-Chief, October, 
1898, page 110, and second in the case of Bos- 
worth, Journal, October, 1906, i)age 139. In each 
of these cases there had been an election to mem- 
bership in Commanderies other than the one in 
the State where the candidate resided, and in each 
case the Commandery-in-Chief declared such elec- 
tion null and void, under the provisions of section 
10, Article VI, of the Constitution of the Order. 

"The committee are of the opinion that in view 
of the action of the Commandery-in-Chief at its 
meeting in 1904, approving the report of the com- 
mittee to which has been referred the case of 
Loeffler, which committee had recommended that 
action on the application should not be taken by 
the Commandery of the State of Ohio pending 
decision of the Commandery-in-Chief, the election 
should not have been made. 

"The committee, therefore, recommend that 



42 

following the precedent established in the above 
cited cases, the election of Major Loeffler be de- 
clared null and void. 

"A. Noel Blakeman, 
"William H. Lambert, 
"Henry L. Swords, 

Committee. 

"Registrar-in-Chief Huxford submitted the fol- 
lowing: 

''Resolved, That the report of the committee be 
adopted as the judgment of the Commandery-in- 
Chief. 

"After discussion, Companion U. A. Woodbury 
submitted the following: 

"Resolved, That further consideration of the re- 
port of the committee be postponed until the 
Annual Session of the Commandery-in-Chief, 1910. 

"The resolution was adopted." 

Note. — Major Loeffler is in his 75th year; the action 
against him, from its first occurrence in 1904, has been 
accompanied from year to year with a request by the 
committee and motion by Companion Huxford to post- 
pone until the next year. Major Loeffler heard, for the 
first time, about a fortnight before the annual meeting 
of 1909, of the pendency of the legality of his election. 
He at once applied to the Recorder-in-Chief for copies of 
the charges alleged against his election and was advised, 
under date October 14, 1909, that the papers were not 
with him but with the committee. 

At the annual meeting of October 20, 1909, at Phila- 
delphia, the documents were placed on his table by the 
Recorder-in-Chief, and stated to be at the service of the 
committee which, so far as Major Loeffler and the Ohio 
Commandery know, had not theretofore considered them 
or the case. 

The committee considered the case during the noon 
recess of the Commandery-in-Chief, all the committee 



43 

being present, also present Companions Huxford, of the 
District of Columbia Coramandery, and Companions 
Thrall and Patrick, of Ohio, and Black, of Illinois Com- 
manderies, all of whom addressed the Committee. 
. Prior to this time neither Major Loeffler nor the Ohio 
Commandery knew the substance or details of the alle- 
gations against the election complained of; and it was 
distinctly stated at this hearing, by Companion Huxford 
and each member of the Committee, that no charge or 
complaint was made against Major Loeffler, whose charac- 
ter was admitted to be above reproach, only the ques- 
tion of law as to his residence being involved in the 
issue. Companion Huxford and the Committee were 
particularly interrogated upon this point, and noti- 
fied that the representatives of Major Loeffler and the 
Ohio Commandery were prepared to refute any and all 
such allegation, with the result that specific denial, as 
above, was made of any intention to reflect upon Major 
Loeffler's entire good faith; and occasion was taken by 
the Committee to speak in the highest terms of his 
character, and the important and trustworthy positions 
he has filled. 

The whereabouts of the dossier, Major Loeffler's in- 
ability to obtain the least information of what he should 
be called upon to meet, and the positive averment by 
Recorder Huxford and the Committee as to the absence 
of any personal question, only the issue of law, coupled 
with the failure to report, or have further time at the 
1906 meeting, and the 1907 and 1908 postponements, and 
the attempted 1904 postponement, become material in 
connection with the statements of pretended facts and 
argument by Recorder Huxford at the 1909 meeting, and 
the bearing of the Carleton Rules upon this case. 

Despite the explicit disclaimers by Companion Hux- 
ford and the Committee that any reflection upon Com- 
panion Loeffler had been made or intended, and the fact 



44 

that nothing orally or in writingwas alleged against him, 
that not one word was uttered by Major lluxford, Re- 
corder, etc., in the presence of the Committee and the 
Companions appearing before it, the following appeared 
in the Committee's report: 

"It appears from an interview with Major Hux- 
ford, Recorder of the District of Columbia Com- 
mandery, Major Loeffler admitted that he was not 
then and never had been a resident of Canton, 
Stark County, Ohio, but that there was a proba- 
bility that at some future time he might reside 
there. Although he was advised to withdraw his 
application, because of this misstatement of fact, 
he did not do so, but allowed his election to pro- 
ceed as stated above. 

"It is a well-known fact that Major Loeffler has 
been a resident of the city of Washington for 
many years past and has occupied a prominent 
position during these years in the White House." 

It is not intended herein to criticise the Committee's 
statement of fact, but nevertheless an unfortunate inac- 
curacy has been perpetrated. 

Neither Major Loeffler nor the representative of the 
Ohio Commandery ever had seen or heard of any inter- 
view with Major Huxford, or knew of any pretended 
admission to him. 

An examination of the original memorandum report of 
the Committee leads to the belief that the report, down 
to and including the paragraphs quoted, had been pre- 
pared for the Committee, perhaps some years before, 
when only an ex parte hearing, wholly without the 
knowledge of the representative of Ohio or of Major 
Loeffler even that his election was in question, had been 
held, and that the fact had been forgotten at the only 
public hearing of the case, at Philadelphia, September 20, 
1909. 

Certain it is, that these two paragraphs have no right- 



45 

ful place in the Committee report, based upon anything 
that had publicly occurred. 

To this day, the Ohio Commandery and Major Loeffler 
have no precise knowledge of the contents of their 
alleged interview, which has studiously been kept from 
them, quiteout of harmony with every understanding of 
fairness or openness; but Major Loeffler submits the 
following statement in answer to so much thereof as he 
has learned through rumor: 

"To the Commanderij -in-Chief 'of the Military 
Order of the Loyal Legion of the United 
States. 

"Companions: I am informed that, at the meet- 
ing of the Commandery-in-Chief, held in Phila- 
delphia, September 20, 1909, a lengthy paper, 
alleged to have been a stenographic report of a 
conversation held in the rooms of the Com- 
mandery of the District of Columbia^ on October 
3, 1904, between Major William P. Huxford, U. 
S. A., Recorder of that Commandery and myself, 
was read by him as a part of his argument, or as a 
proof therein, upon the final hearing of my case. 

"I never have been confronted with, nor given 
opportunity to affirm or deny the truthfulness of 
that paper. My friends have been unable to 
obtain a copy of it ; and it seems never to have 
been made a part of the record. All that I know 
of its contents is what some of those who heard 
it have happened to remember. I am informed 
that it was not presented at the hearing before 
the committee reporting at that meeting, and 
that no Companion representing or sympathizing 
with the Ohio Commandery or myself had heard 
of its existence. 

" I am told that I was represented as saying in 
that interview that I only wanted to use my 
election through the Ohio Commandery as a 
means of admission to the District of Columbia 
Commandery by transfer; that I was not and 
never had been a resident of Ohio, but had ever 
been a resident of the District of Columbia, and, 



46 

substantially, that my application to the Ohio 
Commandery was, from the beginning, an intended 
fraud. If such statement was made it was wholly 
lacking in truth. From the very first, when 
qualified to become a member of the Loyal Legion, 
I desired to affiliate with the Commandery of the 
State of Ohio, for reasons which I have heretofore 
stated to that Commandery, to wit: at the time 
my application was favorably acted upon and I 
was elected a Companion. 

"1 was persuaded to make application to the 
District of Columbia Commandery, which 1 with- 
drew, as appears elsewhere in the record. I had 
and have no desire to intrude myself where there 
is even intimation that I would not be welcome. 
Since the withdrawal of my application to the 
District of Columbia Commandery, 1 never have 
had the least desire to attend, nor have I attended 
any of its meetings. I have repeatedly received 
and declined invitations from Companions to 
attend the meetings of that Commandery. The 
Ohio Commandery is very dear to me because of 
mj^ association with Ohio Presidents, and the per- 
sonal friendships of very many of its members. 
This I have heretofore stated, and will not repeat. 

"On or about October 3, 1904, two Companions 
of the District of Columbia Commandery, Captain 
Hart and Captain Jameson, called on me at the 
White House offices and informed me that Major 
Huxford requested them, as my warm personal 
friends, to ask me to call at his office, as he would 
like to talk to me about my application for mem- 
bership in the Loyal Legion, in the hope that I 
would withdraw my application to the Ohio Com- 
mandery and renew the same in the District of 
Columbia Commander3^ 

"I told them that I was busy then, and also could 
not quite comprehend this seeming manifestation 
of interest in my behalf on the part of Major Hux- 
ford in view of his past attitude toward me; 
nevertheless, 1 accepted the invitation and told 
them I would call at Major Huxford's office when 



47 

the President went to lunch, and I did so call. 
He seemed glad to see me, was very cordial, and 
we talked freely about the matter. He took occa- 
sion, pretending the same to be out of friendship 
for me, to warn me of the i)enalties attending my 
application to the Ohio Commandery; told me 
that any application therein would be annulled 
unless I withdrew such application and applied 
through the Commandery of the District of Colum- 
bia. He referred to the case of Major Reeve as a 
precedent governing my case, which he said set- 
tled my disqualification for membership in the 
Ohio Commandery. 

"His conversation so impressed me that 1 was 
led to sign a telegram his clerk prepared under 
his direction addressed to the Recorder of the 
Ohio Commandery, asking for the withdrawal of 
my application. I looked upon xMajor Huxford as 
an authority in Loyal Legion matters, and his 
assurances that I was eligible to membership only 
through the District of Columbia Commandery I 
felt bound to believe. I put the telegram in my 
pocket, intending to send it when I reached 
the telegraph office. In parting he shook hands 
with m,e, told me I could consider him my friend; 
and I had no supposition that, under the guise of 
a friendly conversation for my benefit, a trap was 
being laid to worm out of me some expression 
which, later, could be used against me. I had no 
suspicion that we were being stenographically 
reported for any purpose. I never had dealt or 
had intercourse with the type of person who does 
siich things; but it is hard to go entirely through 
life without encountering some such abhorrent 
experience. I had no intimation that I was being 
interviewed or under examination. I had no rea- 
son to think otherwise than that I was being 
advised by a friend to keep me from making a 
mistake. 

" I may have stated to Major Huxford that I ex- 
pected at some future time, when having no official 
duties attaching me to the city of Washington, to 



48 

spend all or most of my time at Canton, as that 
would have been true; but I did not admit to him 
that I was not then and never had been a resident 
of Canton, and such statement would not have 
been true had it been made by me or by any one 
else. I think it would not be asserted in my pres- 
ence that I ever had made such admission. On the 
way to the telegraph office, the part Major Hux- 
ford had previously played in my affairs recurred 
to my mind, and I found it impossible to recon- 
cile the entirely different positions he had occu- 
pied, being against me before and apparently with 
me then. I began to suspect his friendly professions 
and concluded not to send the telegram without 
weighing the matter a little more and consulting 
Companions whom I knew to be my warm friends. 
By them I was advised not to send the telegram; 
and that I was eligible to membership through 
the Ohio Commandery, and no other; and that the 
withdrawal of my pending application would 
simply prevent my gaining membership anywhere. 
I was very glad that I did not send it, for a day 
or two later I was notified by the Recorder of the 
Ohio Commandery that the Recorder-in-Chief had 
requested that all papers relating to my case 
should be submitted for consideration at the 
meeting of the Commandery-in-Chief at its meet- 
ing in Cincinnati during the same month. As I 
understand, this request was made because of a 
demand by Major Huxford at or before the very 
day on which our interview occurred — that is, 
about October 3, 1904. 

"My application to the Ohio Commandery was 
originally presented at its May meeting and laid 
over until the October meeting. During all this 
interval, Major Huxford and myself frequently 
passed each other on the street, but he said noth- 
ing to me about it until just on the eve of my 
election, when he asked me to withdraw it in order 
that I might become a member through the Com- 
mandery of the District of Columbia. I submit 
that no alleged statement of mine should be ad- 
mitted as evidence against me or against the good 



49 

faith of my application, until after it has been 
shown to me or to my friends, and opportunity 
been offered to affirm, deny or answer its aver- 
ments. 

"The statements of Captains Hart and Jameson, 
corroborating what I have said of them, are sub- 
mitted in connection herewith. 

"Respectfully and fraternally, 

"Chas. D. a. Loeffler, 

Majo?', U. S. Army." 

The committee makes another equally inaccurate 
statement in the following paragraph: 

"The committee are of the opinion that in view 
of the action of the Commandery-in-Chief at its 
meeting in 1904, approving the report of the com- 
mittee to which has been referred the case of Loef- 
fler, which committee had recommended that action 
on the application should not be taken by the 
Commandery of the State of Ohio pending deci- 
sion of the Commandery-in-Chief, the election 
should not have been made." 

The statement in this report that the Commandery- 
in-Chief, at its meeting in 1904, had approved the com- 
mittee recommendation that action on Major Loeffler's 
application should not be taken by the Commandery of 
the State of Ohio pending decision of the Commandery- 
in-Chief is the direct opposite of the fact. 

Such recommendation was made by the Committee it 
is true, but was not approved; on the contrary the report 
was returned to the Committee for further report. The 
journal of the 20th Annual Meeting at pp. 324-5, ap- 
pearing in full at pp. , supra, shows the following: 
"After discussion. 

"The Recorder-in-Chief moved that the report 
be returned to the Committee for report at this 

session of the Commandery-in-Chief. 
p. 325. "The motion was adopted. 

"Companion Henry L. Swords, chair- 
man of the Committee to whom had been referred 

4119—4 



50 

the application of Major Charles D, A.Loeffler, sub- 
mitted the following: 

''Resolved, that the application of Major Loeffler 
be referred to the Commandery of the State of 
Ohio. 

"The question being upon the adoption of the 
resolution, it was adopted." 

''The Carleton Rules. 

"Journal of the Commandery of the State of 
New York, pp. 18, 19, 20; adopted at Stated 
Meeting, New York City, New York, December 
6th, 1871; published in Circular No. 6, New York 
Commandery, December 14th, 1871. 

"Should any Companion be instrumental in re- 
jection a candidate, after having failed to state 
his objections to the committee, it is deemed that 
he will have violated his obligations as an honor- 
able member, and laid himself open to just 
p. 19. condemnation on account of such action, 
in direct opposition to the well known 
wishes of the Commandery as expressed in this 
opinion of the Council. It is, further, the sense 
of this Council that when a candidate's military 
record is good, and his social and moral standing 
unexceptionable, that any question of purely 
personal feeling should not influence members in 
attempting to cause the rejection of the same." 

The above rules are considered "unwritten law" gov- 
erning the conduct of all Companions of the Loyal 
Legion. 

Major Huxford stated, on honor, before the Com- 
mandery-in-Chief, at Philadelphia, October 20, 1909, 
that on October 3, 1904, and all times thereafter until 
receipt of the Ohio Circular promulgating the proceed- 
ings at the November, 1904, meeting, he had no knowl- 
edge, information, or belief that Major Loeffler's 
application would come up for action before the Ohio 
Commaudery, hence he did not make there the objec- 



51 

tions presented for the first time before the Commandery- 
in-Chief, in 1909. 

The fact is that Major Hiixford was notified in writing, 
served upon him at Cincinnatti, by Major Thrall, October 
11, 1904, that such application ivoiild come up for such 
election at the November meeting, and demand was 
speciflically made upon him to be present and pro- 
pound each and every his objection to such election. 
The notice served provided for the submission by Major 
Huxford to the Ohio Commandery of his allegations and 
proofs within ten days after service upon him, to-wit: 
by or before October 22, 1904. On October 27, 1904, he 
prepared his said objections; and the Ohio Commandery, 
under date 03t::»ber 22, 1904, republished the applica- 
tion in circular 38 (625), and mailed a copy to the Dis- 
trict of Columbia Commandery. It is not true, there- 
fore, that Major Huxford did not have full notice; it is 
true that he had notice, presented his objections; and 
the Ohio Commandery acted upon Major Loeffler's appli- 
cation, his supplemental statement as to residence, and 
Major Huxford's objections. From this no appeal was 
taken; and the 1905 communication from the District of 
Columbia Commandery, and the committee appointed 
thereon, expired by limitation on the adjournment of 
the 1906 session of the Commandery-in-Chief, not hav- 
ing been reported or continued. Without that, how- 
ever, the committee and Commandery-in-Chief had 
officially before them only the charges contained in the 
1905 documents, whatever they may have been, and 
Major Loeffier and the Ohio Commandery had only to 
answer such documents. 

The suspension of 1904 was absolutely illegal, without 
any warrant of law. 

The irregularity was waived, however, and the matter 
adjudged on its merits; the committee report referred 
back, with a second report sending the case to the Ohio 



52 

Commandery for appropriate action, which, while not 
appearing in the Journals, was to be: 

"1. The Ohio Commandery was to republish 
Major Loeffler's application with foot-note that 
he had. applied and withdrawn before the District 
of Columbia Commandery. 

"2. Major Huxford was to submit to the Ohio 
Commandery any objections he might propound 
to such election. 

"3. All this was done; and it was understood 
that the action by the Ohio Commandery was to 
be final." 

In 1904, was no inhibition upon a resident of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia against joining the Order through any 
State Commandery he might select; indeed, sec. 1, Art. 
VI, of the Constitution expressly authorized application 
to "such Commandery as the applicant may select." 

It was not until July 3, 1905, eightmonths after Major 
Loeffler's election, and a year subsequent to his applica- 
tion, that the Constitution was amended so as to require 
residents of the District of Columbia to join through the 
District Commandery; this upon that Commandery's ap- 
plication, to "correct an ambiguity." 

See 1905 Constitution, sec. 1, Art. VI (page 11). 

The Constitution of 1881: 

Art. IV, provided for State Commanderies and 
Commandery-in-Chief. 

Art. VI, contained no retjuirement that appli- 
cation should be presented to the Commandery in 
which the applicant resided. 

The Constitution of 1885: 

Art. IV, same as in 1881. 
Art. VI, same as in 1881. 



53 

The Constitution of 1889: 

Art. IV, amended to provide for the Command- 
ery of the District of Columbia. 

Art. VI, amended to read: Sec. 1. Applications 
for membership shall be made to the Commandery 
of the /Sto^e in which the applicant resides, if a 
Commandery exists therein, and if there be none, 
then to such Commandery as the applicant may 
select. 

Note. — While the District Commandery was 
authorized, doubtless it was recognized that resi- 
dents of many States were temporarily in Wash- 
ington, and would join at their homes, for various 
good reasons. 

The Constitution of 1893: 

Art. IV, same as in 1889. 

Art. VI, same as in 1889. 
The Constitution of 1897: 

Art. IV, same as in 1889 and 1903. 

Art. VI, same as in 1889 and 1903. 

The Constitution of 1901: 

Art. IV, same as in 1889, 1893, and 1897. 
Art. VI, same as in 1889, 1893, and 1897. 

The Constitution of 1901 was in force during all of 
1904, when Major Loeffler applied and was elected and 
qualified, after the Ohio Commandery had been put in 
possession of all the facts connected with his former 
application and residence, and had acted affirmatively. 

The Constitution of 1905, adopted at the Tenth Quad- 
rennial Congress in San Francisco (April 12, 1905), and 
Milwaukee (May 31, 1905), going into effect July 4, 1905, 
as by resolution adopted at Milwaukee, June 1, 1905, 



54 

amended Article VI, section 1, by adding to the 1889 
enactment, supra. 

Provided, That a|)plicants residing in the District of 
Columbia shall apply to the Commandery thereof. 

The Issues are: 

1. Major Loeffler was a resident of Ohio in 1904. 

2. No resident of the District of Columbia was, in 
1904, required to apply through the District Commandery, 
but could select his own Commandery. 

3. No such case against his election through the Ohio 
Commandery has been made as gives the Commandery- 
in-Chief jurisdiction to annul such election or even to 
entertain the complaint against it, under the only ex- 
isting authority for such annulment. 

"Constitution — Annulment of Election. 
"Article VI, Sec. 10. If at any time subse(|uent 
to an election to membership, it shall be dis- 
covered that the same was procured through 
fraud, misstatement, or the suppression of ma- 
terial facts, the Commandery-in-Chief shall have 
power to declare such election null and void; 
Provided, That after due investigation said fraud, 
misstatement, or suppression shall, in the judg- 
ment of a majority of the members of the Com- 
mandery-in-Chief present at the meeting at which 
action is taken be fully established." 

Constitution 1905, p. 15. 

Statement of Record. 

(1) Major Loeffler was a legal resident of Canton, Ohio, 
in 1904, when he made his application to the Commandery 
of the State of Ohio, therefore his election was legal. 

An officer of the regular establishment, he was on duty 



55 

in the city of Washington, by virtue of the following 
order, subsequently ratified by special act of Congress: 

"War Department, 
"Adjutant General's Office. 
"Washington, D. C, Juhj 12, 1898. 
"Capt. Chas. D. a. Loeffler, 

^'Military Storekeepet', Quartermaster'' s 
Department, Washington, D. C. 
(Through the Quartermaster General, U. S. Army.) 
"Sir: The Secretary of War directs that you 
report in person to the President of the United 
States for duty at the Executive Mansion. 
"Very respectfullv, 

"W. H. Carter, 
"Assistant Adjutant General.'' 

(2) In 1904, or at any time prior to July 4, 1905, when 
the amendment to the Constitution went into effect, no 
resident of the District of Columbia was required to 
seek election through the District ('ommandery; con- 
trary, after that date. The omission of such require- 
ment would govern, but the amendment, not being an 
idle or vain thing, was a construction by the 10th Con- 
gress of that article of the Constitution we may not 
ignore. 

(3) The Commandery-in-Chief, under sec. 10, Article 
VI, of the Constitution, may annul an election procured 
through fraud, misstatement or the suppression of 
material facts, after proper and due investigation; other- 
wise, is without jurisdiction to take such order or to 
entertain complaint against such election, except upon 
appeal of the Commandery or Companion. These juris- 
dictional facts are absent from this record; and there 
has been no investigation in which Major Loeffler or any 
one for him has been a party, nor has he had any notice 
that his election was under discussion. The record will 
show that every material fact connected with his resi- 
dence, citizenship, official duties, application to the 



56 

D. C. Commandery, was set out plainly and truthfully 
in his original application and explanatory statement 
before his election. 

Under the Constitution of the Order, Companions are 
required to state fully and fairly, at the date of election, 
any objections they may have. They may not then be 
silent, and, years afterwards, submit objections they 
pretend then existed and were in their hands, secretly, 
unknown and without notice to the applicant and to the 
Commandery with which he is affiliated, to his prejudice. 
Such course is neither good law nor good morals; and to 
approve it would bring reproach and contempt upon the 
whole Order. 

Service and Official Duties. 

From July 10, 1858, continuously. Major Loeffler has 
been in the military or civil service of the Government. 
From March 4, 1869, to the present day at the President's 
door. From July 5, 1898, he was on such duty as an 
officer of the Army on the active list, until retired Janu- 
ary 12, 1901, from which date until June 30, 1902, he 
performed the same duties as a retired officer. By act 
of June 30, 1902(32 Stats., 311), he was allowed full 
pay so long as he should be so employed. After and 
upon retirement he had the right to select a legal resi- 
dence. Canton was selected by him during this period, 
and no court or other tribunal has power to nullify or 
question this free choice, which controls absolutely. 

No charges have been made known to Major Loeffler, 
nor has he had notice of any investigation or hearing by 
Committee or Comniandery-in-Chief until since October 
1, 1909. 

The Reeve and Bosworth cases referred to in the Com- 
mittee's report as precedents have no bearing upon the 
issues in this case. The Reeve case has heretofore been 
discussed. 



57 

The Bosworth case, according to the Committee re- 
port, was a resident of a State (New York) that had an 
organized Commandery, therefore he could not join in 
Ohio. 

The proceedings in that case are as follows: 

"Extract from Journal of 22d Annual Meeting, 
1906 (New York). 

"The Recorder-in-Chief submitted the 
J). 129. election through the Commandery of the 
State of Ohio, of William Wells Bos- 
worth (2d Class). 

"Companion Roswell H. Mason submitted the 
following: 

"Resolved, That a committee of three be ap- 
pointed, to whom shall be referred the documents 
in the case for report at this meeting of the Com- 
mandery-in-Chief. 

"The resolution was adopted. 
"Commander-in-Chief Brooke appointed as the 
Committee 

"Companions Roswell H. Mason, 
R. W. Tyler, 

T. DOHERTY. 

"Companion Roswell H. Mason, chairman of the 
Committee to whom was referred the 
p. 138. election of Mr. William Wells Bosworth, 
2d class, through the Commandery of the 
State of Ohio, and the action and protest of the 
Commandery of the State of New York, reported 
the Committee ready to report. 

"Companion James W. Forsyth moved that the 
Commandery-in-Chief proceed to the considera- 
tion of the report. 

"The motion was adopted. 

"The Commandery -in- Chief: 

p. 139. "The Committee to whom was referred the 

case of William Wells Bosworth, who was 

elected a companion of the second-class of the 



58 

Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United 
States, through the Commandery of the State of 
Ohio, October 4, 1905, respectfully report that it 
appears from the evidence submitted that a mis- 
statement was made in the application as to the 
applicant's place of residence, it being given as 
Marietta, Ohio, while it was in fact, in New York 
city, and therefore recommend that theCommand- 
ery-in-Chief declare such election null and void 
in accordance with the provisions of section 10, 
Article IV, of the Constitution of the Order. 

"RoswELL H. Mason, 
''Richard W. Tyler, 
"Timothy Doherty. 

"Companion Roswell H. Mason submitted the 
following: 

''Resolved, That the Report of the Committee 
be adopted as the judgment of the Commandery- 
in-Chief. 

"The question being on the adoption of the 
resolution, 

"Companion H. C. King moved to strike out 'a 
misstatement' from the report of the Committee 
and to insert 'by inadvertence.' 

"After discussion, the question being upon 
striking out and inserting, it was agreed to: Yeas, 
39; nays, 19. 

"The question being upon the original resolu- 
tion as amended, it was adopted." 

For more than forty 3'ears Major Loeffier has filled a 
position that in England is held by a major-general of the 
army and a Grand Cross of the Bath; in other countries 
by men of similar rank. His personal character is known 
to more men, perhaps, than that of any other officer in 
the army. 

The Ohio Commandery may be pardoned if it hopes it 
will be considered with not unbecoming pride; it ap- 
pends as a specimen expression of the appreciation in 
which he is held by his fellow-men, the subjoined letter 
from ex-president Roosevelt (Exhibit A); as, for reasons 



59 

which will be understood, also the record of Major 
Huxford, upon which he was admitted to membership in 
the Order. 

Conclusion. 

The Commandery-in-Chief is a law unto itself, and its 
decrees may not be reviewed; but no one will assert that 
it may act outside the Constitution of the Order, or 
that, as one of the highest exemplars of government by 
law, it may act otherwise than according to recognized 
legal principles. To hold otherwise would be to destroy 
the principal reason for the Order's existence. 

The report of the Committee of 1909 cites two cases, 
Reeve and Bosworth, as governing precedents. 

'Examination shows both to be inapplicable to the 
facts in this case, and wholly without value to create a 
rule by which this case may be measured. 

Their conclusions have been accepted by the Com- 
panions and Commanderies involved, therefore it is 
unnecessary to refer to them more than to say that the 
Loeffler case comes up for consideration and decision, 
free from precedent or other handicap, except the law 
of the land and of the Order, and the general principles 
of fairness among men. 

In lieu of any erroneous impression too technical to 
regard as precedent, perhaps hastily considered, we 
would substitute the rule laid down by an eminent 
Ohio jurist: 

"A question is never decided until it is decided right." 



60 



Exhibit A. 

" The White House, 
"Washington. 

"July 10, 1908 
"My Dear Major Loeffler: 

"To-day you complete your fifty years — a full 
half century — of service in the Army of the United 
States; and ^'•ou have been in close and confi- 
dential relations with eight Presidents. You have 
rendered loyal, faithful, and gallant service to the 
country; you have shown yourself an absolutely 
trustworthy man; you have done well every duty 
intrusted to you. It is a record for your children, 
and your children's children, to be proud of. 
" With all good wishes, I am, 
"Your friend, 

"Theodore Roosevelt." 



61 



Exhibit B. 



Wm. P Huxford's Military mid Loyal Legion Record. 
Huxford, William Pitkin, N. Y., N. Y.— Private and 
corporal Co. D, 4th Michigan Infantry, 10 June, 1861, to 
15 August, 1862; private Co. B. and sergeant major 162 
N. Y. Infantry, 6 September, 1862 to 3 January, 1863; 
captain 162 N. Y. Infantry, 22 November, 1862; honor- 
ably mustered out 12 October, 1865; captain 42 Infantry, 
28 July, 1866; retired 10 September, 1868; brevet major 
2 March, 1867, for gallant and meritorious services in the 
assault on Port Hudson, La. 

Vol. 1, Heitman's Historical Register and Dic- 
tionary of the United States Armv, 1789-1903, 
p. 815. 

Huxford, William P. — 28 July, 66; bvt. maj., Mar. 2, 
67; retired for disability from wounds in line of duty 
(act Aug. 3, 61); pvt. and corpl. Co. D, 4 Mich. Inf., 10 
June, 61 to 15 Aug., 62; pvt. Co. B and sgt. maj., 162 
N. Y. Inf., 6 Sept., 2; 21 Nov., capt., 162 N. Y. Inf., 22 
Nov., 62; hon. must, out, 12 Oct., 65; capt. 42 Inf., 28 
July, 66; accepted 13 Oct., 66; retired, 10 Sept., 68; 
born in New York; appointed from New York. 
Official Army Register for 1904, p. 351. 

" Military Order of the Loyal Legion 
OF THE United States, 
Commandery of the District of Columbia. 
"Circular No. 16. 
"Series of 1885. 
"Whole No. 6u. 

" Washington, D. C, December 5, 1885. 
"A stated meeting of this Commandery was 
held at the Arlington on Wednesday evening, 
December 2, 1885, at 8 o'clock. 

"The following proceedings of the meeting 
are promulgated for the information of Com- 
panions: ... 

" Brevet-Major William P. Huxford, U. S. A. 

"Entered service June 10,1861, Private, Co. 

D, 4th Michigan Infantry; Corporal, , 1862; 



62 

discharged on account of wound, August 15, 1862; 
Sergeant Major, 162d New York Infantry, Septem- 
ber 6, 1862; Captain, January 3, 1863; Major, 106th 
New York Infantry, December 27, 1864, declined; 
Major,162d New York Infantry, August 31,1865 (not 
mustered); mustered out October 12, 1865; Cap- 
tain, 42d U. S. Infantry, July 28, 1866; retired, 
September 10, 1868; residence, Washington, D. C. 
"Recommended by Companions Drum, Oilman, 
and Rochester. 

"By order of Brevet Major-General Joseph R. 
Hawley, U. S. V., Commander: 

"Albert Ordway, 
Bvt. Brig.-Gen. U. S. V., Recorder. 
"Committee of Investigation: 

"Brevet Col. R. N. Batchelder, Office of 

Quartermaster-General. 
"Surgeon M. L. Ruth, Navy Yard. 
"Captain Wells Willard, Office of Commissary- 
General." 



W60 



